linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] platform/mellanox: mlxbf-pmc: Fix module loading

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:57:02 +0100
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To: Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@...hat.com>,
 Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: shravankr@...dia.com, davthompson@...dia.com, ndalvi@...hat.com,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] platform/mellanox: mlxbf-pmc: Fix module loading

Hi Luiz,

On 2/26/24 17:10, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> On 2024-02-26 11:04, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-02-26 08:27, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 15:57:28 -0500, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The mlxbf-pmc driver fails to load when the firmware reports a new but not
>>>>> yet implemented performance block. I can reproduce this today with a
>>>>> Bluefield-3 card and UEFI version 4.6.0-18-g7d063bb-BId13035, since this
>>>>> reports the new clock_measure performance block.
>>>>>
>>>>> This[1] patch from Shravan implements the clock_measure support and will
>>>>> solve the issue. But this series avoids the situation by ignoring and
>>>>> logging unsupported performance blocks.
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your contribution, it has been applied to my local
>>>> review-ilpo branch. Note it will show up in the public
>>>> platform-drivers-x86/review-ilpo branch only once I've pushed my
>>>> local branch there, which might take a while.
>>>
>>> Thank you Ilpo and thanks Hans for the review.
>>>
>>> The only detail is that we probably want this merged for 6.8 since
>>> the driver doesn't currently load with the configuration mentioned above.
>>
>> Oh, sorry, I missed the mention in the coverletter.
>>
>> So you'd want I drop these from review-ilpo branch as there they end
>> up into for-next branch, and they should go through Hans instead who
>> handles fixes branch for this cycle?
> 
> If that's the path to get this series merged for this cycle then yes,
> but let's see if Hans agrees (sorry that I didn't know this before
> posting).

Hmm, new hw enablement typically goes through -next and not to
the current fixes branch. And AFAICT this is new hw enablement,
not a regression / bug-fix.

Is there any special reason why this needs to be in 6.8 ?

For RHEL kernels you can cherry-pick patches from -next
as necessary.

> One additional detail is that this series is on top of linux-next, which
> has two additional mlxbf-pmc changes:
> 
> * https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/39be055af3506ce6f843d11e45d71620f2a96e26.1707808180.git.shravankr@nvidia.com/
> * https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d8548c70339a29258a906b2b518e5c48f669795c.1707808180.git.shravankr@nvidia.com/

Hmm, those are not small patches, any other reason
why this really should go to -next IMHO.

Regards,

Hans